 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006Otis Brown, please answer my question
Otis: I am growing increasingly tired by your behavior of ignoring questions surrounding the theories you support. I have asked you this question NUMEROUS times, and each time been ignored. My position/argument was that the normal adjustment/accomodation that humans go through in the course of a normal day is different than that of primates: we humans spend hours at a time staring at TV sets, computer screens, et cetera, while primates do not - they change their area of focus from the flea on their fur, to the horizon, to the bars on their cages - they are VERY unlikely to be staring at an object the same distance away for hours on end. Therefore, reason suggests, that the muscles which affect the lens of their eye are behaving differently, changing the shape of the lens more frequently. This strikes me as a fundamental distinction between humans and primates. Further, I argued that if there are fundamental distinctions in the behavior of the muscles of the eyes of different species, that these MUST be considered as variables in the development of their vision. Before studies conducted on primates can be seriously extended to be taken as relevant to humans, this variable should be quantified, and ideally eliminated. These MAY not be correct points, Otis, but they are reasonable. And they deserve consideration by any empirically-minded, scientifically-aware individual. Will you now: -Argue that the behaviors of humans versus primates are NOT different in this regard? -Argue that even though the behaviours and accomodations of primates may indeed differ from those of humans, that these differences have no effect on the development of the vision of the two species? ADDRESS MY QUESTION. It is a reasonable question, and deserves a response. And PLEEEASE, do not just use rhetoric. PLEEEEASE, do not ask me to visit chinamyopia.org. PLEEEEASE, do not ask me to read Steve Leung's research. What I am asking is SIMPLE. ANSWER MY QUESTION DIRECTLY. BD Dear Central, I suggested that YOU determine the behavior of all natrual primate eyes -- by RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT YOUSELF. You then choose to totally ignore my request that YOU run the experiment to determine if all natural eyes are dynamic or "passive". You told me that you wish to TOTALLY IGNORE ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS NATURE. That, as I said before, is where we part company. Best, Otis >You told me that you wish to TOTALLY IGNORE ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS NATURE. Horse-hockey. I said no such thing. If you elect to put words in someone else's mouth as you are doing here, have the courtesy to provide a quote or citation from the post you ostensibly reference. Otherwise, people might conclude that you are fabricating what you are saying. >RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT YOUSELF. Difference between you and me, old boy, is that I am not here attempting to nudge people towards any specific paradigm. YOU ARE. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence supporting your claims, and to defend such claims against academic review. You failed to do so here. Once again, you have completely dodged the (perfectly relevant) question. Too bad, too - because all that this evasion illustrates is that you have NOT done the required research yourself, nor fully considered its implications. You are basically saying "believe what I say - and if you want evidence of what I say, find it yourself". Tell me - how compelling does that sound do you? I say again: Please answer my question concerning patterns of accomodation between primates and humans. Otis never changes. He will not admit that there is strong scientific evidence in humans that myopia progression in not affected by plus lenses, or bifocals (except in near-point esophores), or undercorrection. In fact, there is evidence that undercorrection may actually increase myopia development as others here have recently alluded to (Chung et al). Otis likes to lump the results from studies on chickens, shrews, and baby monkeys all into one pot and draw conclusions that he extrapolates to the way that eye doctors should treat humans! I agree with you-- kind of a leap! Especially in the face of evidence that those treatments don't work in humans. Especially since active research groups using animal models of myopia development openly caution people that human eye development and animal eye development show considerable differences. But a few facts and expert opinions never stops Otis! Otis is an old dog that won't learn new tricks. Some time ago he put together this fantasy world where Steve Leung, Raphaelson, Sterling Colgate, and Francis Young have been canonized as gods. He ignors that 25 years of myopia research has occurred since then and our understanding has moved way beyond what he has already accepted as the gospel. Otis will never address your questions directly. I have tried, MT has tried, LB has tried, p.clarkii is still trying, and now you are trying. He won't talk directly. He'll just launch into another sermon about Raphaelson blah blah blah. Facts mean nothing to Otis. Otis is not a man of logic, reason, or science. He is a zealot. And actually he is kind of pathetic. I no longer have a stomach for confronting Otis. Its annoying that he misleads people here with false information and he should be opposed. I used to post disclaimers about him everytime he replies in this forum. I think Neil is trying to do that now. However it is done, innocent lurkers need to be forewarned about Otis before they actually try some of the crap he suggests. I believe I read here a few months ago that his stupid plus lens treatment actually induced diplopia on some poor person who took his advise. Perhaps someone can chime in and clarify this point. RM PhD OD P.S. And as you have seen, Otis also likes to misquote people and put words in their mouths. Nice guy huh? ============== > >You told me that you wish to TOTALLY IGNORE ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS AND > >ANALYSIS OF THIS NATURE. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I say again: Please answer my question concerning patterns of > accomodation between primates and humans. >Otis will never address your questions directly. I know that all of what you say is true. I've been present for much of the saga. However, I am starting to believe that it is time to force Otis to 'passively' discredit himself by failing to respond to a repeatedly-asked reasonable question and leaving the rest of the group to click their tongues a few times. I know that this stuff pollutes the group with chaff, but I'm in a pissy mood today. ;) I'll stop what I'm doing if I get the sense that 'real' group members have had enough. I expect, though, that many have killfiltered all threads in which he's participated, so hopefully those who really don't want to see the chaff... won't. > >Otis will never address your questions directly. > > I know that all of what you say is true. I've been present for much of > the saga. Otis has been posting this same stuff for more than three years, under his current Email address. Have you been following it the whole time? I have (I've been posting here about four years). > However, I am starting to believe that it is time to force Otis to > 'passively' discredit himself by failing to respond to a > repeatedly-asked reasonable question and leaving the rest of the group > to click their tongues a few times. We've been doing this for years, and it doesn't work. > I know that this stuff pollutes the group with chaff, but I'm in a > pissy mood today. ;) I'll stop what I'm doing if I get the sense that > 'real' group members have had enough. I expect, though, that many have > killfiltered all threads in which he's participated, so hopefully those > who really don't want to see the chaff... won't. Most of us have had more than enough. Most of us have agreed not to respond, other than a standard disclaimer. If you respond, then you force us to either see what you are responding to (which is why the standard disclaimer doesn't quote anything from him), or to killfile you also. Take your pick.  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > If you respond, then you force us to either see what you are responding > to (which is why the standard disclaimer doesn't quote anything from > him), or to killfile you also. Take your pick. Is cutting his post (save maybe a couple of lines), and calling him a liar acceptable? I try not to include his nonsense when I reply but sometimes it helps in context. But I don't want to be KF... So I'll stop if needs be. Cya Simon >Take your pick. Well, I don't have a particular lot to contribute to the group, but I'd prefer not to be KFd as well... >>Take your pick. > > Well, I don't have a particular lot to contribute to the group, but I'd > prefer not to be KFd as well... Im feeling like chicken. But only 2/3s like chicken. >>>Take your pick. >> >> Well, I don't have a particular lot to contribute to the group, but I'd >> prefer not to be KFd as well... > >Im feeling like chicken. But only 2/3s like chicken. Not to worry, Simon. I live close to the C. >I live close to the C. That actually took me about 20 seconds. _almost_ too obscure for my wittuw bwain. Annnnd ... he *still* didn't answer your questions. >Annnnd ... he *still* didn't answer your questions. He will - or I'll keep posting the question until the group starts to lose it on me. ;) >> Annnnd ... he *still* didn't answer your questions. > > He will - or I'll keep posting the question until the > group starts to lose it on me. ;) No. He won't. He can't. He may not even realize that he can't. Never wrestle with a pig. You will both get dirty and the pig likes it. -Quick >No. He won't. He can't. Likely. I guess it's a question of how ridiculous he will allow himself to continue to look. By all current metrics, his threshold in that regard is pretty darned high. >>No. He won't. He can't. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > By all current metrics, his threshold in that regard is pretty darned > high. It'll never happen. He'll never actually reply to your post. He'll just keep saying Subject: "The proven dynamic nature of "primate" eyes", or Subject: "The Second Opinion" when all you did was ask, "What's your current prescription?" When I do try to reply to him, I just pick out that Subject line and call him an ignorant liar. :-) >When I do try to reply to him, I just pick out that Subject line and call him an ignorant liar. :-) And that's being charitable. > Never wrestle with a pig. You will both get > dirty and the pig likes it. mind if i borrow this quote? i like it! >> Never wrestle with a pig. You will both get >> dirty and the pig likes it. > > mind if i borrow this quote? i like it! It's not mine. It's a pretty common saying in some parts. -Quick > > Never wrestle with a pig. You will both get > > dirty and the pig likes it. > > mind if i borrow this quote? i like it! I like this version better (I stole it from somebody's sig): Never wrestle with pigs. You will lose, you will get dirty and the pig probably enjoys it. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Dear Central, > > I suggested that YOU determine the behavior of all natrual primate > eyes -- by RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT YOUSELF. So you don't know then? > You then choose to totally ignore my request that YOU run the > experiment to determine if all natural eyes are dynamic or "passive". But you're giving "opinions", so you must know? Otherwise how can you possibly back up your position and be expected to be taken seriously? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.